The response for the motion to dismiss was filed yesterday (PDF link). The argument is a technical one about timing and a substantive one about the nature of the communications between the defendants and the media concerning the lawfulness of the Brown’s family.

The technical argument is about timing. There is a 21 day period to file a motion to dismiss. This was not filed in that window, but there is a complication because the plaintiffs agreed to the extension, however, it appears that the defendants, who as the asking party had the responsibility, failed to file the request for the extension with the court. If true this is a serious problem and the requests and orders do not show up on the electronic docket.

The substantive argument is about standing and the threat of prosecution. This argument starts on page six of the PDF and is worth reading. The gravaman of the argument is that while no charges have been filed the investigation and threat of charges have caused actual substantive harm as required for standing. The memo also points out that the motion to dismiss does not offer any promise not to charge the Brown family under the laws they are trying to challange.

The motion is supported by affidavits and I am just going to attach these because I have not read them fully yet. They are all PDFs.

Plaintiffs in this case have not shown that these Defendants have subjected them, or caused them to be subjected to, a deprivation of their constitutional rights. Plaintiffs have thus not shown the second element for injury-in-fact -causation – and have not established standing or a justiciable cause of action.